> > >>> ...and works only for some types of files (how about a webserver> > >>> written in Perl?).> > [...]> > > {Shrug} Perhaps somebody can suggest some way that capabilities can> > have meaning for a script, any script if it comes to that?> > A script in Unix is just another random way to write a program that does> what I want. Nothing special there. Note that today's scripts are (almost)> undistinguishable from binary, compiled programs: They may carry the same> permissions (execute permissions for whom, even S[UG]ID bits (not on all> Unices, but several honor them)). If some scheme can't do the same (at least> in principle) for capabilities, it is fundamentally flawed. No "all> capable" interpreter should be needed, as this is a _huge_ security risk,> the kernel might as well endow this particular process with the requested> capabilities, and nothing else.

Why is all capable interpretter huge security risk? Look atsuidperl. It drops priviledges _then_ it looks at code, so overflow inits parsing routines is not going to help you.

PavelPS: Any all capable file is huge security risk. I do not see whyinterpretters are any worse :-).-- I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. PavelLook at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).

-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.eduPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/